Faith on Trial (7 page)

Second, in another passage the author of the Gospel of John quoted the Jews standing nearby as stating that “it took forty-six years to build
this
temple” (emphasis added). The reference by the author is to the temple that was physically near the group as they spoke to Jesus. Construction began during the reign of Herod the Great in approximately 20 to 19
bc
, and although the temple proper was completed in approximately
ad
18, construction of the entire temple complex continued until about
ad
60. Chronologically, this statement can be calculated to have been made at about
ad
28 to 30, during the last years of the ministry of Jesus as reported by the Gospels.
40

Irenaeus, bishop of Gaul in about
ad
180, was a student of Polycarp, a disciple of John, and associated with others who had contact with first-generation Christians.
41
He wrote that John lived until the reign of the emperor Trajan, which began in
ad
98.
42
Robinson, however, in a carefully reasoned study has pointed out that there is no positive reason to suppose that the Gospel was written near the end of John’s life. In an extensive analysis giving consideration to the historical points of reference established in this Gospel, Robinson has dated it reliably at
ad
65, with the possibility of an earlier draft having been prepared between
ad
50 and 55.
43

The new redating of the Gospel of Matthew, the comparative associated redating of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the dating for the Gospel of John require the Gospels now to be analyzed completely differently from texts believed to have been written years later as skeptics claim. The early dating of the manuscripts clearly permits a belief that the authors of the Gospels were potential eyewitnesses, alive at the time of the events, with an opportunity to observe personally those events. Moreover, the early dating undermines the assertion of critics that, since memory can be altered by the passage of time, the Gospels are not reliable as evidence or that they were merely stories derived from myths or legends.

In addition, the firsthand nature of the Gospel testimony is often suggested by affirmative statements by the authors themselves when they describe events in the text. A belief that the authors were there, in that place and at that time, is also corroborated in other New Testament writings. This point was particularly emphasized in the Gospels, and authentication of the eyewitness nature of the observations is abundant (see 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 John 1:1–3; Luke 1:1–3; Acts 1:1–3, 9; 10:39–42; 1 Cor. 15:6–8; John 20:30–31; 21:24; 1 Pet. 5:1).
44
For example, in the Gospel of John, the author emphasized that the account of the soldier’s piercing of Jesus’ side on the cross was based on the author’s own eyewitness observation. Other New Testament writings also contain numerous reports of eyewitnesses to the actual resurrection of Jesus (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 22:15; 23:11; 1 Cor. 15:4–19; 1 John 1:2).

The early dating of these Gospels suggests they were actually in circulation at a time when the people who participated in the reported events were still alive. The people who would have received these Gospels in all likelihood were the same ones who were present when some of these events occurred and additionally were familiar with the oral history of those events. These people would have acted as a natural safeguard against inaccuracy in the testimony, and they would not have adopted teachings they believed to be false. The importance of these events to the people actually involved in them is evident to us today not only through the sacrifices many of them were willing to bear in support of these principles but also by the swift establishment of the Christian church throughout the entire region.

Critics who believe the Gospels were not written by people living at the time of the events reported no longer have a basis for that position; the Gospels appear to have been written almost contemporaneously (from a historical perspective) with the last events that occurred, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

Contrasting the uniform acceptance of the validity and authorship of other historical documents with the way the Gospels are generally viewed by scholars is interesting. The closest time interval between any ancient writing and its original form, other than the New Testament, is probably the
three-century interval
between the original writings of Virgil and the date of the first known existing manuscript. In contrast, at the most only thirty or so years occurred between the events reported in the Gospels and the date assigned to the first fragments that match later manuscripts word for word. The primary historical works of Tacitus, who wrote at the end of the first century, are preserved in only two manuscripts, one dated in the ninth century and one in the eleventh.
45
The
Iliad
by Homer, is preserved in 643 manuscripts; the works of Euripides, in 330 manuscripts; and the
History of Rome
by Velleius Paterculus, was preserved in only one incomplete manuscript, lost in the seventeenth century; whereas there are more than twenty-five thousand early handwritten copies of the Bible in Greek, Latin, and other languages.
46
The jury should test the historical reliability of the Gospels against the same criteria used in evaluating other works. In that regard Greenleaf has pointed out that the entire text of the Roman Civil Law,
Corpus Juris Civilis,
has been received as established authority based on much weaker evidence of its authority.
47

Historical circumstances, the four Gospels’ first-person style of reporting in the context of early and mid-first-century society, and the early dating of the papyrus fragments of the manuscripts provide us with evidence that the authors were alive at the time the events occurred and that they had the
opportunity
to have been present at the events to which they testify, thus meeting the standards required to show firsthand knowledge under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The attribution of the authorship of the Gospels to actual individuals is supported by substantially contemporaneous historical writings contained in the New Testament and by writings outside the New Testament. These assertions are based on the oral history and understanding in the community from the time of the death of Jesus through the dates of such writings. For example, scholars almost all agree that a letter from Paul to the Christian community in Corinth dated
ad
54–56 preserves early oral teachings about the resurrection of Jesus. These words, in the form of an early creed, are written in a style that predates the author, using primitive Aramaic language that is different from the rest of the letter (see 1 Cor. 15:4–7).
48

A writing referred to as the
Didache
(or
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
) appears to contain an early reference to a written “Gospel” of Jesus, in a specific rather than a general sense, which is to be received from each apostle as if it came from Jesus himself.
49
The actual dating of the
Didache
is uncertain, but the judgment of many scholars is that it reflects an early period, perhaps even predating the actual writing of any of the four Gospels. Additionally, in
ad
95, Clement of Rome appears to have used material from what are now known as the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in a letter written to Christians in the city of Corinth.
50
The letter also stated that “the Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. . . . They went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.”
51
A recently discovered work indicates that by
ad
140 a compilation of the Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, Hebrews, and the book of Revelation was already in existence and that the writings were generally accepted as authoritative.
52

A determination by the jury that the authors of the Gospels were writers with firsthand knowledge of the events reported is not dependent on establishing the actual individual relationships. But knowing who the writers actually were will add depth and richness to the understanding of the nature of this testimony. The individualization of the testimony further corroborates the firsthand nature of the testimony. Let us therefore examine the written attributions of authorship of the four Gospels being offered into evidence.

Based on the prior analysis, including the recent redating of the Magdalen fragments from the Gospel attributed to Matthew, we may reasonably believe the Gospel of Matthew was written within approximately thirty-three to thirty-six years of the death of Jesus, no later than the comparative Egyptian letter dated
ad
66 from a farmer described above, and probably much earlier. The earliest historical account of the attribution of the writing to the apostle Matthew comes from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, writing about
ad
130. As preserved in the writings of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea and a church historian who lived between
ad
270 and 340, Papias wrote the following in an apparent reference to the Gospel of Matthew: “Matthew compiled the Logia in the Hebrew [Aramaic] speech, and everyone translated them as best he could.”
53

Additionally, a document known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, written near the end of the second century, refers to Matthew’s writing in Judea. The historian Eusebius also referred to this Gospel as having been written before the departure of Matthew from Palestine.
54
Irenaeus wrote: “Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there.”
55

The Gospel of Matthew is offered to you, the jury, as written testimonial evidence given by the apostle Matthew, also known as Levi, one of the original twelve apostles referred to in the Gospels, an eyewitness to the events reported. He was Jewish and held the post of a tax gatherer under Roman authority, apparently with responsibility for collecting taxes, duties, and customs in the region. His presence at the events and during the time reported in his Gospel is also mentioned in other books of the New Testament.

Because the Magdalen fragments, dated by Thiede no later than
ad
66, are written in Greek, and yet Papias states that the original Gospel was written in Aramaic, we may also infer that an original manuscript was written by Matthew at a date even earlier than that of the Greek Magdalen fragments. Some scholars have argued that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek; however, that speculation, which is based solely on scholarly interpretation and no empirical evidence, requires a supposition that Papias, who wrote in the early part of the second century, was either wrong or confused.
56
In contrast, Ignatius, a contemporary of Papias who wrote about
ad
115, described him as being “a man well skilled in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with the Scriptures.”
57
Papias was also careful to authenticate his own extensive investigations of the origins of the Gospels derived from both writings and oral teachings. In work preserved by Eusebius, Papias stated that whenever he was in the presence of the “elders” or someone who had been a companion of the apostles, or any of the other disciples of Jesus, he would inquire about their “sayings” to obtain personal authentication of those reports.

But I will not be unwilling to put down . . . whatsoever instruction I received with care from the elders and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself.
58

Papias was further described by Irenaeus as “a hearer” of the apostle John, and a companion of Polycarp, “a man of primitive times.”
59
Another early fragment refers to Papias as a disciple of John, and the Anti-Marcionite Prologue also refers to Papias as “John’s dear disciple.”
60

Although the books written by Papias are now lost with the exception of a few fragments, other ancient writers have preserved relevant quotations from his early writings. There is no reason to suppose, therefore, that Papias was either confused or wrong in his conclusions.

Further support for an earlier Aramaic original manuscript by the apostle Matthew appears in Irenaeus’s statement in the second century, noted above, that Matthew wrote a Gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect. As late as the fourth century, Jerome wrote that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was preserved at that time in the library at Caesarea.
61
Raymond Brown, in a study on the New Testament, reported that Clement of Alexandria and Origen, early church historians from the second century and the early part of the third century, also accepted that the Greek manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew was translated from Aramaic.
62

In the opinion of many scholars, Matthew’s clear preservation of Aramaic idioms in his use of Greek strongly supports the Aramaic origin of that Gospel.
63
The structure and style of the writing also indicate the Aramaic nature of the writing. For example, the lineage of Jesus is traced as it would have been by a Jewish writer for Jewish readers. If the Aramaic manuscript was written first, the date of the original of the Gospel of Matthew must be somewhat earlier than
ad
66, the date assigned to the Greek Magdalen fragments.